![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
dnyson
0p1 comments posted · 44 followers · following 0
12 years ago @ The Toast - A Very Important Quest... · 1 reply · +8 points
I think there are some underlying assumptions here that we need to tease out to get to the heart of the matter. I'm specifically approaching the problem that the possible world the Redwall creatures inhabit has 'cheese' but does not have 'cows', 'sheep', or 'goats', but I think this might help solve the overall issue. So far I've got:
1) The sentient creatures of Redwall are sentient in the same way (in some sense) that we are sentient.
2) When a creature of Redwall says 'cheese' they mean the same thing as I mean when I say 'cheese'. The same can be said for 'cows', 'sheep' etc...
3) The possible world of the Redwallers shares many of the laws of nature ours does (detail needed here)
Following from these and a few details from the books we can see that the in possible world the Redwall creatures inhabit (call it Redworld) the redwallers talk about and eat cheese, what we mean by cheese, but do so in a world where cheese (as we and the Redwallers know it) can only exist if not produced by cows, sheep, goats. This seems implausible to me. It's not necessary for cheese to be produced by cows etc... but I find it counter-intuitive how Redworld has many similar laws of nature to ours, cheese the same as ours, but it is produced in a way entirely different to ours. I would propose denying either or both assumption 1&2.
Is it possible that although the language Redworld shares the same words as ours, the meanings are in some cases radically different? Is it possible that a Redwaller means something different when they say 'cheese' then when I say it? These are questions that need addressing. I think a lot will hinge on how much narration is 1st person and how much is 3rd (I can't remember for the life of me). It could be argued that a 3rd person narrator gives us reason to believe that we share the meanings of our language with Redworld, whereas if the books are mainly 1st person it could be that the subjective experience of the characters is entirely different than what we take it to mean.
Please bear in mind this is very, very rough. But I hope it gives more points of conversation.
1) The sentient creatures of Redwall are sentient in the same way (in some sense) that we are sentient.
2) When a creature of Redwall says 'cheese' they mean the same thing as I mean when I say 'cheese'. The same can be said for 'cows', 'sheep' etc...
3) The possible world of the Redwallers shares many of the laws of nature ours does (detail needed here)
Following from these and a few details from the books we can see that the in possible world the Redwall creatures inhabit (call it Redworld) the redwallers talk about and eat cheese, what we mean by cheese, but do so in a world where cheese (as we and the Redwallers know it) can only exist if not produced by cows, sheep, goats. This seems implausible to me. It's not necessary for cheese to be produced by cows etc... but I find it counter-intuitive how Redworld has many similar laws of nature to ours, cheese the same as ours, but it is produced in a way entirely different to ours. I would propose denying either or both assumption 1&2.
Is it possible that although the language Redworld shares the same words as ours, the meanings are in some cases radically different? Is it possible that a Redwaller means something different when they say 'cheese' then when I say it? These are questions that need addressing. I think a lot will hinge on how much narration is 1st person and how much is 3rd (I can't remember for the life of me). It could be argued that a 3rd person narrator gives us reason to believe that we share the meanings of our language with Redworld, whereas if the books are mainly 1st person it could be that the subjective experience of the characters is entirely different than what we take it to mean.
Please bear in mind this is very, very rough. But I hope it gives more points of conversation.
Joint